Wolaabuu Broadcasting Corporation - WBC

04/26/2026

: Turtii Seenaa Jimjimoo Woliiin

01/31/2026

Godina Balee Bahaa aanaa - Sawweenaa, Raaytuu, Daawwee Sararii fi Daawwee Qaachan keessatti caamaa wolqabatee ummatni qe’ee irraa baqqa’ee aanota baddaa Baalee keessatti kadhaa irratti hirmaatee jiraachuu himame. Maatiin gariin aanota akka Agaarfaa fi Gaasaraa keessatti kadhaa irratti bobba’ee jiraachutu himame. Faallaa kanaan, aanaa Daawwee Sarar keessatti ammoo, kaabineen rakkoo ummatnii fi beeyiladni keessa jiru kana moggatti dhiisuun akka waan misoomni jirutti gabaasaa jiru jechuun jiraatootni naannoo komatu. Ummata rakkoo keessa jiru buusii- Qaxxamura diimaa, milishaa fi gibira bikkaa dabreen ummata dararu jechuun maddi WBC kun komi ibsan. Kana irraan, kaabineen ummata dirqisiisanii maallaqa irraa funaanuun gaala bitanii of lamaanii wolbadhaasan jechuun maddi kun komii ummataa hadheeffatee dubbata.

Miidiyaan mootummaa fi biyya keessas rakkoo kanaaf xiyyeeffannaa kennanii gabaasaa akka hin jirre kaasu. Hanga ammaatti, qaama mootumaa fi dhaabbilee gargaarsaa irraa ummata baraaruuf yaaliin deeggarsa godhuuf taasifame hin jiru jedhu, maddi kun.

Xumurra irratti, aanotni kun duras bu’uraalee misoomaa akka barnootaatiin duubattu hafoo turan. Haala amma jiru keessatti, barattonni aanota kana keessatti barnoota irraa harca’aa jiru jedhu. Akka aanaatti, aanaan barataa tokko yuunivarsitii hin seensifnetu jira jedhu, maddi kun hanqinni jiru sadarkaa isaa yoo ibsan.

Oduu kana like godhaa, qaama dhimmi ilaalu bira akka gahuufis share godha. Odeessa biraa argachuuf ammoo fuula FB WBC kana - Follow godhuu hin dagatinaa.

01/25/2026

Oduu - Godina Baalee Bahaa: Aanaa - Sawweenaa, Raaytuu, Daawwee Sararii fi Daawwee Qaachan keessatti caamni hammachuu irraan kan ka’e, ummatnii rakkoo keessa jiraachuu dhalattootni naannoo WBCtti himan. Sababa hoongee kanaan namni waan nyaatuu dhabuu irraan kan ka’e, ummatni rakkoo hamaa keessa jiraachuu; akkasumas maatiin gariin qe’ee isaanii irraa buqqa’anii adeemuutu himame. Beelaydnis waan dheedanii fi dhugan dhabuun kan ka’e, gaaga’amaaf hedduuf saaxilamaa jiraachuu maddi kun itti dabaluun WBCf ibsan.

Xumurra irratti, maddi kun rakkoo ummatni keessa jiru kana Oromoonis; addunyaanis akka nuuf hubatanii, birmannaa namoonaa nuuf taasisan dhaamatan.

Oduu kana like godhaa, qaama dhimmi ilaalu bira akka gahuufis share godha. Odeessa biraa argachuuf ammoo fuula FB WBC kana - Follow godhuu hin dagatinaa.

01/24/2026

Torban kana keessa qilleensi Kaaba Ameerikaa, keessattu USA fi Kanadaa keessa garmalee ligidaa’aa turu isaa gabaafamaa ture. Ligidiin kun guyyoota muraasa itti aananis jabaatee akka itti fufu, gabaasaalee maddeen qilleensaa ni mul’isu. Keessattuu ammoo, steetotni Ameerikaa kan akka Memphis, Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia fi New York, magaalaa New York dabalatee Sambata irratti cabbii guddaan naannolee kanatti bu’u akka danda’u raagni qilleensa ni agarsiisa.

Keessattu, kutaaleen New Jersey fi kibba baha New York cabbiin hanga inchii 14 (hanga seenti meetira 30) naannolee kanatti bu’uu akka danda’utu akeekame. Sababa qilleensaan kanaan wolqabateen Jimaata kaleessaa qofa, USA keessatti balaliin xayyaara 400 ta’an haqamuutu ibsame. Guyyaa hardha (Sambata duraa jechuudha) balaliin biyya keessaa fi ala taasifamuuf karoorfaman 3200, akkasumas balaliin 4800 Samabata Guddaaf karoorfaman haqamuutu ibsame.

Gama biraatiin, sababa hammaachuu qabbanaan wolqabatee, steetotni tokko tokko labsii yeroo muddamaa labsutu gabaafame.

Kanadaa, keessattu Manitoba, Saskatchewan fi kibba Ontario qilleensi garmalee qabbanaawaa ta’uu isaa (severe orange cold warnings) tempreechurri naannoo kibba Manitoba fa’atti degree Celsius -40 to -45, akkasumas Saskatchewan’tti ammoo degree Celsius -45 to -50 turetu gabaafame. Qilleensi ligidaa’aan kun guyyoota sambataa kanas akka itti fufutu himame.

Of eeggannaa taasifamuu qaban - qabbana keessa yeroo dheeraaf ala turuu dhabuu fi ala bahuun dirqama ta’ee yoo argame, sirritti uffachuun barbaachisaa dha. Ala turraan daqiiqa muraasa keessatti “frost bite” argachuun ni danda’ama. Mallattoolee isaa - hafuurri addaan nama cituu, dhukkubbii qomaa, dhukkubbii irree fi dadhabbii, akkasumas hadooddii fi qubni harkaa fi miila keessaan bifa jijjiiruu eegaluudha. Mallattoolee kana ofirratti arginaan saffisaan gargaarsa yaalaa barbaada. Manguddoo fi ijoollee keessan too’adhaa.

01/17/2026

Landmark Studies Confirm Safety of Tylenol Use During Pregnancy for Child Neurodevelopment

By Hashim Adam, PharmD

A growing body of rigorous scientific evidence has definitively addressed longstanding concerns regarding Tylenol (acetaminophen) use during pregnancy. High-quality analyses now demonstrate that prenatal acetaminophen exposure does not increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or other neurodevelopmental impairments.

Comprehensive Meta-Analyses Affirm Safety
A landmark meta-analysis published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women’s Health (2026) synthesized data from 43 studies encompassing over one million children. After adjusting for confounding variables, including genetic and familial factors, the analysis found no evidence of a causal link between maternal acetaminophen use and ASD, ADHD, or intellectual disability [1]. Notably, sibling-comparison analyses — regarded as the gold standard for controlling familial confounding — fully attenuated previously reported associations.

These findings are further reinforced by an umbrella review published in The BMJ (2025). The authors concluded that studies suggesting harm were predominantly low or critically low-quality, often failing to control for maternal illness, fever, infection, or genetic predisposition. When higher-quality studies were evaluated in isolation, no increased neurodevelopmental risk was observed [2].
Population-Based Research Corroborates Findings
Population-level investigations published in JAMA Network Open echo these conclusions. While unadjusted analyses occasionally suggested modest associations between acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes, these associations disappeared in sibling-comparison models, indicating that shared genetics or environmental factors — rather than the drug itself — accounted for observed differences [3].

Limited Contradictory Evidence
Some NIH-funded studies measuring acetaminophen metabolites in umbilical cord blood have reported correlations with neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, authors consistently emphasize that correlation does not equate to causation, and that observed associations may reflect maternal illness or inflammation rather than pharmacologic effects [4]. Other narrative or environmental reviews have suggested potential dose-dependent risks, yet these analyses acknowledge methodological limitations and lack definitive conclusions.

Regulatory and Professional Consensus
Regulatory agencies and professional organizations align with the high-quality evidence. In 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated that while some studies suggest potential associations, no causal relationship has been established [5]. Similarly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Pharmacists Association continue to recommend acetaminophen as the safest first-line option for pain and fever management during pregnancy, emphasizing that untreated maternal fever itself poses well-established risks to fetal development [6].

Conclusion
The preponderance of evidence from large, methodologically robust studies demonstrates that acetaminophen is safe when used appropriately during pregnancy. Concerns raised by earlier observational studies reflect methodological limitations, residual confounding, and misinterpretation of associations. Expectant parents and healthcare providers can continue to rely on acetaminophen as a trusted, evidence-based option for managing pain and fever.

References
Khalil A, et al. Prenatal acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Obstet Gynecol Women’s Health. 2026.
Umbrella review of acetaminophen use in pregnancy and child neurodevelopment. BMJ. 2025.
Population-based sibling comparison studies on acetaminophen exposure. JAMA Network Open. 2024–2025.
National Institutes of Health. Cord blood acetaminophen biomarkers and neurodevelopment. 2024.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Acetaminophen use in pregnancy: Safety communication. 2025.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion on acetaminophen safety in pregnancy. 2025.

01/16/2026

Oduu gaddisiisaa - godina Arsii aanaan Muneessaa, ganda Heeban Laaqichaa jedhamutti humnootni mootummaa Itoophiyaa jiraattota ganda kanaa, namoota lama, obbolaa ta’an- dargaggoo Musxafaa Mi’eessoo Daksiisoo, umrii 18 fi obb. Milkeessoo Mi’eessoo Daksiisoo, umrii 40 guyyaa kaleessaa (Ammajii 13, 2026) bakka tokkotti rashananuu jiraattotni naannoo WBCf himan.

Namootni kun lachuu sababa rashanamanii maatiif hin himamne. Reeffis maatiif hanga oduun kun gabaafametti, akka hin kennamni; gosti woreegamtoota kanaa reeffa akka dhoorgataman maddi oduun itti dabaluun ibsan.

Obb. Milkeessoo Mi’eessoo Daksiisoo abbaa maatii, ijoollee sagaltiiti. Dargaggoota Musxafaan obboleessa maandhaa obb. Milkeessooti jedhu madde oduu kana WBCn gahan.

01/16/2026

Why Senior DOJ Prosecutors Are Walking Away—and What It Means for Justice in America?

From the Midwest, a warning sign emerges for the rule of law nationwide

Contributed by: Hashim Adam ,PharmD

MINNEAPOLIS — When senior career prosecutors walk away from the U.S. Department of Justice, it is never just about staffing. It is about conscience, credibility, and whether the nation’s most powerful law-enforcement institution still commands the trust of those sworn to uphold it.

That is what makes the recent resignations by seasoned DOJ attorneys—many based in the Midwest—so consequential. These were not political appointees cycling out with an administration. They were career civil servants, veterans of multiple presidencies, choosing departure over participation in decisions they believed crossed a line.

At the center of the dispute is the DOJ’s refusal to open a federal criminal civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis. Prosecutors who resigned reportedly objected to the exclusion of the Civil Rights Division from reviewing a lethal use-of-force incident involving a federal officer—an exclusion that departs from long-standing departmental practice (2, 3, 4).

The Midwest is often cast as America’s institutional backbone—measured, pragmatic, and resistant to political extremes. That is precisely why this moment matters. When prosecutors rooted in that tradition decide they can no longer serve, it signals a problem larger than any single case.

Prosecutorial Discretion—or Something Else?
The administration insists the resignations reflect routine turnover and principled prosecutorial discretion. DOJ officials cite the high legal bar for federal civil rights prosecutions, particularly the requirement to prove willful intent under 18 U.S.C. § 242, and say that standard was not met here (1).
That argument is legally accurate—and ethically incomplete.

The Civil Rights Division was created in 1957 precisely because Congress recognized that the federal government must sometimes scrutinize its own power to preserve constitutional legitimacy (8). The difficulty of proof has never been a reason to avoid review. To the contrary, review is how legitimacy is earned.

When career prosecutors conclude that scrutiny itself is being curtailed, resignation becomes a form of institutional dissent.

A Familiar Pattern in American History
This is not the first time DOJ resignations have served as an alarm bell. During Watergate, prosecutors and senior officials resigned rather than execute directives that would compromise the integrity of criminal investigations, leading to reforms designed to insulate the department from political interference (6). In 2006, the politically motivated dismissal of U.S. attorneys triggered congressional investigations and the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, reaffirming that prosecutorial power must not be bent to political ends (7). Those episodes taught a hard lesson: when professional norms erode quietly, public trust erodes loudly.

Why This Matters Beyond the DOJ?
Law and order is not sustained by enforcement alone. It depends on legitimacy—the belief that the law applies equally to civilians and the state alike. Decades of research show that people comply with the law when they believe institutions are fair, not merely forceful (9).

If federal authorities appear more willing to scrutinize civilians than federal officers, especially in communities already burdened by aggressive enforcement, confidence in justice collapses. That collapse does not stay local. It spreads—into courtrooms, communities, and civic life.
From immigration enforcement to civil rights oversight, the consequences are national.

The Choice Ahead
The resignations from Midwest DOJ offices are not an act of defiance; they are a warning. They ask whether the Justice Department will reaffirm its historic role as an independent guardian of the law—or normalize a narrower vision of accountability that shields state power from scrutiny.

America has faced this choice before. Each time, the answer has determined whether law and order stood on the firm ground of justice—or the brittle edge of authority alone.
The prosecutors who walked away have made their judgment. The rest of us must decide what it means—and what we are willing to accept in the name of justice.

References
U.S. Department of Justice. (2026). Statements on prosecutorial discretion and civil rights investigations.

PBS NewsHour. (2026). DOJ prosecutors resign in protest over handling of ICE shooting investigation.

The Washington Post. (2026). Senior DOJ officials resign amid internal disputes over civil rights enforcement.

The Guardian. (2026). U.S. Justice Department attorneys quit over ICE shooting probe.

Brennan Center for Justice. (2023). The Department of Justice and prosecutorial independence.

U.S. Congress. (1974). Watergate hearings and DOJ reforms.

U.S. Congress. (2007). Report on the dismissal of U.S. attorneys.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1957). Civil Rights Division: Founding and mandate.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.

Berman, D. A. (2010). Prosecutorial discretion and its limits. Harvard Law Review, 123(7), 1859–1905.

Amnesty International. (2022). Law enforcement accountability and human rights.

U.S. Supreme Court. (1943). Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91.

Rosenberg, G. (2008). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change?

Skowronek, S. (1993). The politics presidents make.

Ackerman, B. (2010). The decline and fall of the American republic.

01/11/2026

Immigrant Participation in Government Assistance Programs in the United States: Evidence, Context, Racial Comparisons, and Policy Implications

Contributed by: Hashim Adam, PharmD

Introduction

Immigrant participation in government assistance programs in the United States has long been a focal point of public discourse and policy debate. Recently, claims advanced by the current administration have reasserted the notion that immigrants—particularly noncitizens, humanitarian migrants, and racially minoritized groups—are disproportionately reliant on public assistance and impose a substantial fiscal burden on the U.S. welfare system. These assertions have been used to justify restrictive immigration policies, benefit exclusions, and heightened enforcement measures.

This article is motivated by a need to critically examine these claims. Are immigrants, in fact, more dependent on government assistance than native-born Americans? Do observed disparities persist when comparisons are made on a per capita basis rather than at the household level? How do welfare participation patterns differ across racial groups, and to what extent are these differences attributable to immigrant status rather than broader structural and demographic factors? Finally, how much variation exists within the immigrant population itself?

Popular narratives frequently portray immigrants as net consumers of public benefits. However, empirical evidence reveals a far more nuanced reality. While immigrant-headed households may exhibit higher participation rates in certain means-tested programs, individual immigrants consistently consume fewer benefits per capita than their native-born counterparts, including when comparisons are made within the same racial groups. These observed differences are largely attributable to structural, demographic, and policy-driven factors, including household composition, legal eligibility restrictions, age distribution, labor market integration, and socioeconomic positioning.

Understanding immigrant welfare participation thus requires moving beyond simplistic comparisons between immigrant and native populations. Patterns of benefit use reflect not inherent dependency, but the intersection of economic circumstances, legal frameworks, and familial structures. For instance, households with U.S.-born children may access programs for which adult immigrants are ineligible, while immigrants navigating entry into the labor market often rely temporarily on support systems designed to facilitate economic integration. Moreover, long-term fiscal analyses indicate that immigrants contribute positively to public finances through taxes, labor, and entrepreneurship, offsetting program costs and demonstrating their integral role in the broader economy.

This article synthesizes extant research to examine the determinants of immigrant welfare participation, emphasizing per capita versus household-level perspectives, racial comparisons, and heterogeneity among immigrant groups. By situating these patterns within the context of U.S. immigration policy, socioeconomic integration, and demographic trends, it challenges reductive narratives and offers an evidence-based perspective on immigrant participation in the U.S. social safety net.

Per Capita Consumption Patterns
-Analyses of national datasets consistently demonstrate that, on an individual basis, immigrants utilize fewer government welfare and entitlement programs than native-born Americans.

-According to the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), immigrants consumed approximately 21% fewer welfare and entitlement benefits per capita compared to native-born individuals, with noncitizens exhibiting even lower usage (Nowrasteh & Howard, 2022).

-Historical data from 2020 corroborate this trend, demonstrating lower overall welfare consumption among immigrants relative to their population share (Nowrasteh, 2020).

-Similar patterns were observed in 2019, with immigrants consuming roughly 28% fewer benefits per capita (Nowrasteh & Howard, 2019).

-Analyses controlling for age, income, education, and other demographic variables reveal that immigrants consistently consume fewer welfare benefits than native-born Americans with comparable characteristics, underscoring the role of demographic structure rather than immigrant status itself (Cato Institute, 2025).

These findings illustrate that, at the individual level, immigrants are not inherently more dependent on public support, and that per capita measures provide a more accurate assessment than household-level statistics.

Household-Level Participation
When examined at the household level, immigrant-headed households frequently display higher participation in means-tested programs. This phenomenon is largely attributable to household composition and eligibility rules.

In 2022, 53.5% of immigrant-headed households utilized at least one major welfare program, compared with 39% of native-headed households (Camarota & Zeigler, 2023).

Noncitizen-headed households sometimes report participation rates approaching 59%, reflecting the presence of U.S.-born children who are eligible for assistance even when adult immigrants are not (Camarota & Zeigler, 2023).

Household-level participation therefore reflects family size, fertility patterns, and income thresholds, rather than immigrant dependency. Failure to distinguish between household and per capita measures has contributed significantly to misinterpretations in policy debates.

Racial Comparisons in Welfare Participation
Disaggregating welfare participation by race reveals that immigrant status often moderates or reverses racial disparities observed among the native-born population.

Across major racial groups—Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian—foreign-born individuals consume fewer welfare benefits per capita than U.S.-born individuals of the same race. While native-born Black Americans exhibit higher welfare participation rates than other native racial groups, this gap narrows substantially among immigrants, indicating that nativity, legal eligibility, and demographic structure are stronger predictors of welfare use than race alone.
Decomposition analyses show that if immigrants shared the same age, education, and family characteristics as native-born Americans, their participation in means-tested programs would be lower across all racial groups (Huang, Kaushal, & Wang, 2020).

These findings challenge claims that immigration exacerbates racial disparities in welfare dependence and instead highlight the role of long-standing structural inequalities affecting the native-born population.

Comparisons Among Immigrant Groups
Immigrants are not a monolithic population, and welfare participation varies meaningfully across immigrant subgroups.

Region of Origin
Immigrants from Latin America and parts of Africa exhibit higher household-level participation, largely due to younger age distributions, larger families, and lower initial earnings.

Immigrants from East and South Asia consistently demonstrate the lowest welfare participation rates, reflecting higher educational attainment and concentration in employment-based admission categories.

European and Canadian immigrants display participation patterns similar to native-born Whites.

Admission Category
Refugees and humanitarian migrants show higher initial participation in public assistance programs, a pattern consistent with forced displacement, limited asset transfer, and early resettlement needs.

Longitudinal research demonstrates that reliance declines substantially over time as employment and earnings increase (Borjas & Trejo, 1990).

Employment-based immigrants exhibit the lowest welfare participation rates.

Family-sponsored immigrants fall between these groups, with participation driven primarily by household income and composition.

Length of Residence
Earlier studies suggest that recent immigrant cohorts rely more on welfare initially but reduce dependency over time, reflecting labor market assimilation and upward mobility (Borjas, 1994).

Legal and Policy Context
Eligibility regulations exert a decisive influence on immigrant welfare participation.
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act imposed a five-year waiting period for most legal immigrants to access federal welfare programs, while many noncitizens remain ineligible entirely (American Immigration Council, 2025).

Undocumented immigrants are largely excluded from federal benefits; however, U.S.-born children in mixed-status households qualify independently, contributing to higher household participation rates (Cato Institute, 2025).

These restrictions clarify that observed participation often reflects benefits received by eligible dependents rather than immigrant adults.

Socioeconomic Integration and Labor Market Factors
Immigrant welfare participation is closely tied to economic positioning and labor market integration.
Many immigrants enter the labor market with lower wages, fewer assets, and limited professional networks, increasing short-term eligibility for means-tested programs (Vasheghanifarahani, 2025).

Programs such as SNAP and Medicaid primarily serve low-income families, which are disproportionately represented among immigrant households due to demographic characteristics rather than dependency behavior (Camarota & Zeigler, 2023).

Fiscal Considerations
Beyond participation metrics, immigrants’ fiscal contributions provide essential context.
Longitudinal modeling suggests that immigrants often exert a net positive fiscal impact at the federal level, as tax contributions exceed benefits received over time (Reddit analysis, 2025).

Evaluating immigrant welfare participation in isolation fails to account for contributions through taxes, labor, entrepreneurship, and intergenerational economic growth, which collectively offset program expenditures (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

Conclusion
Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that:
Immigrants consume fewer welfare benefits per capita than native-born Americans, including within the same racial groups (Nowrasteh & Howard, 2022).

Higher household participation rates are driven by family composition and citizen children’s eligibility, not excessive adult immigrant benefit use (Camarota & Zeigler, 2023).

Racial disparities in welfare participation are smaller among immigrants than among the native-born and are primarily structural in origin (Huang et al., 2020).

Legal restrictions and labor market integration dynamics play a central role in shaping observed patterns (American Immigration Council, 2025).

Claims advanced by the administration that immigrants are disproportionately dependent on government assistance are therefore not supported by the empirical record. A rigorous, disaggregated analysis reveals that immigrant welfare participation reflects demographic realities and policy design—not inherent dependency—and underscores the importance of evidence-based approaches to immigration and social welfare policy.

References
American Immigration Council. (2025). Immigration and welfare eligibility policies.

Borjas, G. J. (1994). Immigration and welfare, 1970–1990 (NBER Working Paper No. 4872). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Borjas, G. J., & Trejo, S. J. (1990). Immigrant participation in the welfare system (NBER Working Paper No. 3423). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Borjas, G. J., & Hilton, L. (1995). Immigration and the welfare state (NBER Working Paper No. 5372). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Camarota, S. A., & Zeigler, K. (2023). Welfare use by immigrants and the U.S.-born. Center for Immigration Studies.

Cato Institute. (2025). Immigration research policy brief: Welfare use and benefit levels among immigrants and natives.

Cato Institute. (2025). Immigration and welfare state: Welfare use rates and benefit levels.

Heritage Foundation. (2013). The fiscal cost of unlawful immigrants and amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer.

Huang, X., Kaushal, N., & Wang, J. S.-H. (2020). What explains the gap in welfare use among immigrants and natives? (NBER Working Paper No. 27811).

Nowrasteh, A. (2020). Immigrant and native consumption of means-tested welfare and entitlement benefits in 2020. Cato Institute.

Nowrasteh, A., & Howard, M. (2019). Immigrant and native consumption of means-tested welfare and entitlement benefits in 2019. Cato Institute.

Nowrasteh, A., & Howard, M. (2022). Immigrant and native consumption of means-tested welfare and entitlement benefits in 2022. Cato Institute.

Reddit analysis. (2025). Synthesis of fiscal impact models of immigrants.

Vasheghanifarahani, F. (2025). Returns to U.S. and foreign experience among immigrant men. arXiv.

01/11/2026

: Sirna Gadaa fi Babal'ifannaa Daagaa, Kibba Baha Oromiyaa

12/29/2025

https://www.youtube.com/live/ui7FyiKx3T8?si=VVmllx2wxT4oQDoD

: Marii Manguddoo Woliin - Rakkoolee Daangaa Bifa Haaraan Deebi'ee fi Caama Naannoo Gammoojjii Irratti Woliin Taasifame